STEEL PELLET ENERGY COMPARISONS

[B525 LIGHT]

For those of you with too much time on your hands quite like myself over the past four days. I've calculated the theoretical muzzle energy for our four most popular sizes of steel shot suitable for Geese at various velocities.

 

Obviously smaller sizes loose energy quicker than larger sizes, however it shows an initial comparison at the muzzle between the four sizes.

 

Figures in the left column for each size = MUZZLE VELOCITY in FEET PER SECOND (fps)

 

Figures in the right column for each size = PELLET ENERGY in FOOT/POUDS (ft/lbs)

 

 

SIZE #1 SIZE SIZE #B

 

1300 fps = 16.10 1300 fps = 18.87

1350 fps = 17.36 1350 fps = 20.34

1400 fps = 18.67 1400 fps = 21.89

1450 fps = 20.03 1450 fps = 23.48

1500 fps = 21.43 1500 fps = 25.13

1550 fps = 22.89 1550 fps = 26.83

1600 fps = 24.39 1600 fps = 28.59

1650 fps = 25.93 1650 fps = 30.41

 

SIZE #BB SIZE #BBB

 

1300 fps = 21.90 1300 fps = 26.49

1350 fps = 23.61 1350 fps = 28.56

1400 fps = 25.39 1400 fps = 30.72

1450 fps = 27.24 1450 fps = 32.95

1500 fps = 29.15 1500 fps = 35.26

1550 fps = 31.13 1550 fps = 37.65

1600 fps = 33.17 1600 fps = 40.12

1650 fps = 35.27 1650 fps = 42.67

 

It clearly demonstrates the dramatic reduction in pellet energy of many so called "HIGH PERFORMANCE" common CIP approved factory loads in comparison to modern loads available in non CIP regulated countries.

 

[Guest cookoff013]

that comparison is a good example of muzzel velocities.

 

what is often mis understood is the fact tha game is shot at distance, and the pellets are not retaining the same muzzel speeds over the distance to target.

 

take the 1450fps loads, very easy to achieve with europowders.

 

with BB nearly squeezing 1/3rd more energy / piece of shot. comparing #1 and BB

 

 

For those of you with too much time on your hands quite like myself over the past four days. I've calculated the theoretical muzzle energy for our four most popular sizes of steel shot suitable for Geese at various velocities.

 

Obviously smaller sizes loose energy quicker than larger sizes, however it shows an initial comparison at the muzzle between the four sizes.

 

Figures in the left column for each size = MUZZLE VELOCITY in FEET PER SECOND (fps)

 

Figures in the right column for each size = PELLET ENERGY in FOOT/POUDS (ft/lbs)

 

 

SIZE #1 SIZE SIZE #B

 

1300 fps = 16.10 1300 fps = 18.87

1350 fps = 17.36 1350 fps = 20.34

1400 fps = 18.67 1400 fps = 21.89

1450 fps = 20.03 1450 fps = 23.48

1500 fps = 21.43 1500 fps = 25.13

1550 fps = 22.89 1550 fps = 26.83

1600 fps = 24.39 1600 fps = 28.59

1650 fps = 25.93 1650 fps = 30.41

 

SIZE #BB SIZE #BBB

 

1300 fps = 21.90 1300 fps = 26.49

1350 fps = 23.61 1350 fps = 28.56

1400 fps = 25.39 1400 fps = 30.72

1450 fps = 27.24 1450 fps = 32.95

1500 fps = 29.15 1500 fps = 35.26

1550 fps = 31.13 1550 fps = 37.65

1600 fps = 33.17 1600 fps = 40.12

1650 fps = 35.27 1650 fps = 42.67

 

It clearly demonstrates the dramatic reduction in pellet energy of many so called "HIGH PERFORMANCE" common CIP approved factory loads in comparison to modern loads available in non CIP regulated countries.

 

 

30% more energy is an advantage.

[Guest topshot_2k]

What is the average velocity of High performance steel? As it seems to vary a lot, Eley lightning was/is around 1600fps and my Remington steel is also around 1550fps.

 

What does 20 ft/lbs at muzzle equate to at 45yds? As long as each pellets retains enough energy at normal ranges and the pattern is sufficient that's all we need.

[Guest cookoff013]

american about 1500fps / 1550 fps for the real decent stuff.

 

1400fps for everyday euro chaff.

 

http://shotshell.drundel.com/steel.htm

 

at 40yards, steel BB looses 2/3rds its speed. and has only half or a 1/3rd the energy compared to lead.

the thing that looks about right is steel 2s are about the same as lead 4s at 40 yards.

 

so shoot 2s at any speeds 1400fps and above for a great bird shell.

the BBs and that are just dedicated shotsizes to honkers.

[B525 LIGHT]

CIP places restrictions of 1410 fps for CIP compliant High performance steel. Eley fully accept their Lightning Steel exceeds this and say you use it at your own risk. It doesn't use the CIP crest on the packaging.

 

Remmie Sportsmans may advertise 1550 fps but its very well recorded that they don't make this. Nitro steel on the other hand are often faster than stated velocities. They cost more for a reason.

 

I fully accept these figures are muzzle energy rather than down range performance however a pellet needs the energy in the first place in order to maintain sufficient energy at range.

 

What I think's interesting is the surprising difference between BB at 1300 fps and 1450 fps. That's 6 ft/lbs more at 1450 fps!! That's the same energy as a non FAC air pistol in difference. This is why lighter faster loads used through longer aftermarket chokes give such good results. Personally I've found they can out perform slow 3.5" loads. It's all too easy to think heavy loads are better but this demonstrates that's an assumption left over from the days of lead.

that comparison is a good example of muzzel velocities.

 

what is often mis understood is the fact tha game is shot at distance, and the pellets are not retaining the same muzzel speeds over the distance to target.

 

take the 1450fps loads, very easy to achieve with europowders.

 

with BB nearly squeezing 1/3rd more energy / piece of shot. comparing #1 and BB

 

 

 

30% more energy is an advantage.

 

Considerable isn't it!!

[wymberley]

Trials have shown that a better way to compare the effectiveness of steel (or any other NTS) with lead is not to use the energy figures but those for the energy density. Just as an example, these figures are taken from the Ballistic Research Laboratory report into the development and evaluation of NTS. The MV is common at 400m/s, the energy is given in Joules (J) and the energy density is in J/mm2. The range is 40 yards and the shot sizes are No 6 (2.6mm) and No 4 (3.1mm).

 

The energy for lead 6 is 1.84 and for steel 4 is 1.85. Looking good.

The energy density for lead is 0.34 and for steel, 0.25. Not so good.

Steel in shot size 1 (3.6mm) is 3.47 Joules and matches the lead No 6 energy density figure. So much for going up two shot sizes.

 

Energy density is simply the pellet energy divided by its cross- sectional area.

 

Please don't shoot the messenger.

[Guest cookoff013]

Trials have shown that a better way to compare the effectiveness of steel (or any other NTS) with lead is not to use the energy figures but those for the energy density. Just as an example, these figures are taken from the Ballistic Research Laboratory report into the development and evaluation of NTS. The MV is common at 400m/s, the energy is given in Joules (J) and the energy density is in J/mm2. The range is 40 yards and the shot sizes are No 6 (2.6mm) and No 4 (3.1mm).

 

The energy for lead 6 is 1.84 and for steel 4 is 1.85. Looking good.

The energy density for lead is 0.34 and for steel, 0.25. Not so good.

Steel in shot size 1 (3.6mm) is 3.47 Joules and matches the lead No 6 energy density figure. So much for going up two shot sizes.

 

Energy density is simply the pellet energy divided by its cross- sectional area.

 

Please don't shoot the messenger.

 

i kinda get the point.

 

-i`ll over simplify.

shoot big rocks.

[B525 LIGHT]

That's very interesting Wymberley. I have some data from Federal cartridge company from the 80's showing how an increase of two shot sizes gives a similar striking energy at 40 - 50 yds but I've always thought this totally fails to understand the differences between the two materials. No way does a larger lighter pellet have the mass to ensure sufficient momentum to penetrate the same. Increased velocity helps buts it's not the complete answer.

[wymberley]

That's very interesting Wymberley. I have some data from Federal cartridge company from the 80's showing how an increase of two shot sizes gives a similar striking energy at 40 - 50 yds but I've always thought this totally fails to understand the differences between the two materials. No way does a larger lighter pellet have the mass to ensure sufficient momentum to penetrate the same. Increased velocity helps buts it's not the complete answer.

The Laboratory, a 'department' of University College London, was set up to do a job which it did, submitted its report and then closed down. I was given a copy of the report and every aspect of it was nothing less than superb. Instead of now relying on the work of other nations whose requirements aren't always compatible to ours, I've always thought it a crying shame that the set-up was not ongoing. Whether BASC, the proof houses, the UK gun trade or whoever, could have run it as a profit making independent facility I know not but think that its demise is a loss, particularly for those who currently and in the future - in other words everybody - who uses/will use NTS.

[figgy]

The other factor with larger pellets at distance is the increase in drag and air resistance slowing it down more and bigger pellets don't penetrate as far.

 

It would be nice to know at say 50 yards just how hard the various pellets hit and also penetrate.

 

Only then can we find the sweet spot, in speed and pellet size to retained energy/penetration on impact.

 

Figgy

[wymberley]

The other factor with larger pellets at distance is the increase in drag and air resistance slowing it down more and bigger pellets don't penetrate as far.

 

It would be nice to know at say 50 yards just how hard the various pellets hit and also penetrate.

 

Only then can we find the sweet spot, in speed and pellet size to retained energy/penetration on impact.

 

Figgy

The previously mentioned report indicates that (picked at random) for three pellet sizes, 2.6, 3.1 and 3.6mm each having a MV of 400m/s, the 2.6 at 20 metres retains 53.5% of its MV, 3.1 has 58.25 and 3.6 has 62.25. Similarly at 50 metres the 2.6 has 31.5, the 3.1 has 36 and the 3.6 has 39.75%. This reflects that as is known, the heavier pellet will retain its velocity better than a lighter one. Unfortunately, steel does not do so as well as lead.

 

It would seem that the knowledge base for NTS is growing rapidly but as yet does not match that for lead. The empirical effective range tables for lead shot size/energy/quarry species are readily available. As these can be relied upon, then comparing the figures for energy density will give a better assessment of lethal effectiveness than does energy alone when selecting the optimum NTS pellet size. For two pellets each having the same energy or energy density, the smaller of the two will be more lethally effective. Given this, by using the known parameters for lead, the search for the steel "sweet spot" becomes a little easier.

[B525 LIGHT]

When I have a little more time I'll work out the pellet energy for each pellet size at 600 fps. I know this figure is often used as a guide in the US for the velocity required to penetrate a bird at range. At just what range each pellet would achieve velocity this would be more difficult to establish but at least it will give some indication for comparison between various Steel sizes. At no point should these figures be compared to lead. It behaves completely differently.

[Grandalf]

Fascinating stuff - Thanks for the post and the effort involved.

[Anth6568]

I'm with you on that one Grandalf, fascinating stuff.

 

Keep it coming B525Light!

Edited November 2, 2013 by Anth6568

[wymberley]

At just what range each pellet would achieve velocity this would be more difficult to establish but at least it will give some indication for comparison between various Steel sizes.

Having chatted, I'm looking forward.to your next post. Meanwhile, I had a look at cookoff013's reference at Post #4 and without falling into the 3' trap, ran the figures that I believe to be correct - or to be more precise, reasonably accurate - and got almost identical results which would be perfectly acceptable for field use. Consequently, as the BC figure for the 3 sizes of steel shot (3.6, 4.1 and 4.6mm) that I've so far come up with coincides with both the figures at Post #4 and the findings of the BRL then it's probably fair to say it's not too far off. Consequently, given this information deducing the 600ft/sec range is quite straight-forward.